New U.S. Department of Labor rules may require employers to pay overtime to salaried workers earning less than $47,476 a year, effectively doubling the current overtime annual salary threshold of $23,660.

A group of 21 states and more than 50 business groups that filed suit against the DOL won a preliminary injunction in late November that halted the rule from taking effect on Dec. 1. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency and his promise to roll back regulations add more uncertainty as to whether this new rule will be revoked or revised in 2017.

Advertisement

The Department of Labor estimates as many as 4.2 million U.S. workers would be affected by the change. By some estimates, as many as 70 percent of companies are in violation of the rules.

It’s important to conduct an audit of your workforce and bring all employees to compliance if they are not already, said Catherine K. Ruckelshaus, general counsel at the National Employment Law Project.

With many existing state rules already much higher than the federal threshold, companies often find they are already in compliance, which is much more cost-effective than defending a wage and hour claim.

But with so many companies still at risk of being noncompliant, they must review for problems, said Chris Williams, an employment practices liability product manager at Travelers.

“If you haven’t fixed it … [and you are sued], you paint yourself in an even worse light in a courtroom,” said Lisa Doherty, co-founder and CEO of Business Risk Partners, a specialty insurance underwriter and program administrator.

Wal-Mart Stores was most likely aiming for broad-based compliance ahead of the deadline when it recently raised all salaries for its entry-level managers to just above the threshold at $48,500 from $45,000 annually, according to Reuters.

A Change Long Overdue

The FLSA was enacted in 1938 and established the 40-hour work week salary threshold, which entitled workers to time-and-a-half their regular hourly wage for any overtime.

White collar workers making more than the threshold and meeting certain “duties tests” were exempt from receiving overtime pay if they worked more than 40 hours in a week. The current threshold of $455 a week or $23,660 annually, has been in place since 2004.

“A mid-level manager with a labor budget and no compliance training regarding overtime rules is a loaded weapon you have pointed at the business because you have given that manager an incentive with no context.” — Noel P. Tripp, principal, Jackson Lewis P.C.

The currently postponed new rule more than doubles the minimum to $913 per week, or $47,476 annually, and will automatically increase every three years based on wage growth Employers with exempt salaried workers within this range generally face three options.

One: Raise the annual pay to above $47,476 to maintain the exempt status. This option works best for employees paid a salary close to the new level, such as those Wal-Mart managers.

Two: Reclassify salaried employees as hourly and pay time and a half when they exceed 40 hours in a week. This approach works best when there are only occasional spikes that require overtime for which employers can plan for and budget.

Three: Strictly limit employees’ time to 40 hours and hire additional workers. That’s not always a welcome path if it triggers a new record-keeping system to track hours. It can be difficult to get workers to change their behavior to start recording when they arrive at work and leave.

Establishing a 40-hour week was meant to encourage employers to hire more people rather than pay overtime, but often adding staff is not in the labor budget.

“A mid-level manager with a labor budget and no compliance training regarding overtime rules is a loaded weapon you have pointed at the business because you have given that manager an incentive with no context,” said Noel P. Tripp, a principal at Jackson Lewis P.C., who represents employers in wage and hour cases.

What’s at Stake? Legal Cases Are Growing

There were 8,000 FSLA wage and hour claims filed last year, making it the single fastest growing type of employment litigation, Doherty said.

One reason for that claims volume is that there are a variety of ways a company can violate the rules.

There’s straight-out failure to pay overtime when a worker is entitled to it. There’s “donning and doffing” claims when an employer doesn’t include the time to put on protective gear as part of the work day. DuPont and Tyson were both targets of class action lawsuits citing donning and doffing.

Advertisement

“It has been the law for many decades; if you don’t keep track of it there’s a presumption against you,” said attorney Thomas More Marrone, who is representing employees against DuPont.

Some newly emerging FLSA cases involve the time employees spend on computers or checking email at home, Williams said. Often, he said, it’s not until a claim is filed that employers — who bear the burden of proof in most cases — realize they haven’t maintained the appropriate records to defend the business.

It’s important that companies talk to a broker about coverage for some of that exposure, Williams said.

A coverage endorsement attached to employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) policy forms may cover the cost of defending claims alleging that an employer failed to pay overtime to a nonexempt employee. &

Juliann Walsh is a staff writer at Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

According to a survey conducted by The Hartford in Q2 2017, 80 percent of mid-to-large size companies in the U.S. are engaging in overseas business, ranging from executive travel all the way to manufacturing. Globalization and technology create opportunities to tap into new markets, and companies that don’t take advantage of those opportunities risk losing out to competitors that do.

“Eighty percent of mid-size companies have some type of international exposure, and we expect that these companies will only continue to increase their international activities going forward,” said Alfred Bergbauer, Vice President and Head of Multinational Underwriting, The Hartford.

Most mid-sized companies address their international exposure via a global master policy, which is issued in the U.S. and provides blanket terms and conditions to all of an insured’s operations, including those outside the U.S. Buyers may believe it fully covers any exposures faced abroad, but a U.S. global master policy may not operate as traditional local insurance would. For example, it may not be recognized by a local regulator and may be inconsistent with local law. Thus, the performance of the insurance may not be in line with the insured’s expectations of how the policy should perform in the event of a loss or where a certificate of insurance is required.

As a result, the U.S. issuing carrier may not be able to respond to a loss arising at an insured’s facility outside the U.S. as the insured might expect, and payments or reimbursements made to the insured resulting from that policy could carry significant tax penalties or fees.

“A U.S. contract cannot bend the rules and regulations of a sovereign nation,” Bergbauer said. “A U.S. master policy may be inconsistent with local insurance terms and conditions, norms and practice and thus cannot always address local country risk needs as a local policy issued in that country would. For risks located outside the U.S., such as risks arising from operations in other countries, master policies should be paired with coordinated, locally issued insurance policies.”

Brokers and buyers unaware of the specialized insurance structures required to legally transact business abroad could face the following three unintended consequences:

1. If the insured suffers a loss, they might not be indemnified.

Alfred Bergbauer, head of Multinational Insurance

Domestically, U.S. companies have very clear expectations for their insurers. If the insured suffers a compensable loss, they want their carrier to pay the claim ―whether it’s first- or third-party― and hire counsel to represent them if necessary. In other words, they expect full indemnity.

But this basic expectation for indemnification is not automatic in foreign countries. If an insured does not have a local policy and suffers a loss, an expedient claims payment may not always occur.

That is, “Without a local policy, the U.S. policy may not behave as the customer would expect it to,” Bergbauer said. “For example, in some countries, it may be more difficult to hire counsel, to utilize a claim adjuster to pay a local third party, and crucially, pay the insured’s local operation which suffered the loss.”

2. Claims payments could be subject to U.S. taxes.

If an insured has only a U.S. master policy, the insured’s foreign operation would be responsible for covering the loss in the foreign country and the U.S. insured would then seek reimbursement from its insurer in the U.S.

However, a claim payment made in the U.S. to cover a loss suffered by foreign entity is considered a taxable event in the eyes of the IRS.

“The IRS takes the view that the insured has no loss to offset against this payment, resulting in the payment being taxable at the U.S. corporate income tax rate —currently 21 percent,” Bergbauer said.

“It can be a very uncomfortable situation if the broker or insured were unaware of that dynamic.”

Getting hit with such a significant and unexpected tax leaves the insured short of the funds needed to recover from a loss, and threatens the trust placed in their broker to educate them about this exposure.

3. Failure to obtain insurance from a local carrier exposes the insured to many risks.

If an insured’s local operations are required to obtain property or liability cover from a local insurer either by local law or because the local operations need to provide certificates of coverage from local insurers, insurance provided by a U.S. insurer may not address these requirements.

“If the local regulator finds evidence that a local operation does not have insurance provided by a local carrier where it is required to do so, it can issue penalties against both the broker and the policyholder,” Bergbauer said. “China, for example, has issued penalties for unlicensed insurance equal to five times the amount of the illegal claim payment.”

Beyond a sizable bill, such companies also stand to take a hit to their reputations.

“You want to be viewed as an upstanding corporate citizen in the markets where you operate.” Bergbauer said.

“If a local newspaper calls you out for breaking the law, it can be tough to recover from.”

An Intensifying Exposure

All of the above risks stem from relying on a Global Master Insurance policy which does not leverage locally admitted policies. The risks associated with covering risks arising from foreign operations without local policies have always existed, but they have flown under brokers’ radar because enforcement of local insurance laws was relatively lax.

That is no longer the case.

Today, ministries of finance and regulatory authorities have started collaborating across borders to share information about foreign investment trends and audits conducted on foreign firms, even entering multilateral agreements to identify violators of insurance law.

“They look for the most egregious offenders and make examples of them,” Bergbauer said.

In light of the enforcement crackdown, multinational companies can ill afford to be uninformed of their international insurance risks or the solutions available to address them. Sophisticated brokers in the U.S. may be experts on domestic regulatory requirements, but too often they lack knowledge of varying rules and regulations outside our borders, and of the solutions available to fulfill them.

“Most companies with international exposures are never approached by their broker to discuss those risks and delve into the best way to insure them,” Bergbauer said.

“Brokers do not spend enough time discussing the extent of their customers’ international activities, or how their policies will respond to them. So we’re going out to our broker network and teaching them how to have this conversation.”

Keys to Compliance: Education and the Controlled Master Program

Through seminars, informational bulletins and one-on-one conversations, The Hartford is reaching out to agents and brokers to make education and awareness of regulatory risk a priority. And it offers a solution to fill in the gaps where a global master policy may fall short of local standards: a Controlled Master Program, or CMP.

The Controlled Master Program differs from a Global Master Policy in a few important ways. Primarily, it allows for the placement of locally-issued admitted policies along with a U.S. master policy, while keeping the administration, claims and risk control services consolidated with one single carrier.

This means clients have a single point of contact, no matter where they have insurable assets or where they incur a loss. A comprehensive global program administered by a single carrier presents the most streamlined and efficient way to address risk exposures arising out of international activity.

The Hartford leverages its global network infrastructure — spanning 150 countries around the globe — to identify where admitted insurance is required and then places good local standard policies in compliance with local regulations. By taking a holistic underwriting approach to the entirety of a company’s exposures, the negative consequences outline above can be avoided. The CMP offers the benefits of cost efficiency, claims consistency, an increased level of control for the buyer, and better regulatory compliance.

“The Hartford’s Controlled Master Program provides the coverage that you expect in the U.S., wherever you have exposure. Alignment among underwriting, risk control services and claims guarantee consistent loss response and level of service across the board,” Bergbauer said.

Perhaps most importantly, The Hartford’s proactive outreach ensures brokers are equipped to discuss and address their clients’ international exposures, helping ensure they don’t have to learn the consequences of providing coverage without local policies the hard way.

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with The Hartford. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.

The Hartford is a leader in property and casualty insurance, group benefits and mutual funds. With more than 200 years of expertise, The Hartford is widely recognized for its service excellence, sustainability practices, trust and integrity.

Faced with a shortfall of as many as two million workers between now and 2025, the sector needs to either reinvent itself by making it a more attractive career choice for college and high school graduates or face extinction. It also needs to shed its image as a dull, unfashionable place to work, where employees are stuck in dead-end repetitive jobs.

Advertisement

Added to that are the multiple risks caused by the increasing use of automation, sensors and collaborative robots (cobots) in the manufacturing process, including product defects and worker injuries. That’s not to mention the increased exposure to cyber attacks as manufacturers and their facilities become more globally interconnected through the use of smart technology.

If the industry wishes to continue to move forward at its current rapid pace, then manufacturers need to work with schools, governments and the community to provide educational outreach and apprenticeship programs. They must change the perception of the industry and attract new talent. They also need to understand and to mitigate the risks presented by the increased use of technology in the manufacturing process.

“Loss of knowledge due to movement of experienced workers, negative perception of the manufacturing industry and shortages of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) and skilled production workers are driving the talent gap,” said Ben Dollar, principal, Deloitte Consulting.

The Talent Gap

Manufacturing companies are rapidly expanding. With too few skilled workers coming in to fill newly created positions, the talent gap is widening. That has been exacerbated by the gradual drain of knowledge and expertise as baby boomers retire and a decline in technical education programs in public high schools.

Ben Dollar, principal, Deloitte Consulting

“Most of the millennials want to work for an Amazon, Google or Yahoo, because they seem like fun places to work and there’s a real sense of community involvement,” said Dan Holden, manager of corporate risk and insurance, Daimler Trucks North America. “In contrast, the manufacturing industry represents the ‘old school’ where your father and grandfather used to work.

“But nothing could be further from the truth: We offer almost limitless opportunities in engineering and IT, working in fields such as electric cars and autonomous driving.”

To dispel this myth, Holden said Daimler’s Educational Outreach Program assists qualified organizations that support public high school educational programs in STEM, CTE (career technical education) and skilled trades’ career development.

It also runs weeklong technology schools in its manufacturing facilities to encourage students to consider manufacturing as a vocation, he said.

“It’s all essentially a way of introducing ourselves to the younger generation and to present them with an alternative and rewarding career choice,” he said. “It also gives us the opportunity to get across the message that just because we make heavy duty equipment doesn’t mean we can’t be a fun and educational place to work.”

Rise of the Cobot

Automation undoubtedly helps manufacturers increase output and improve efficiency by streamlining production lines. But it’s fraught with its own set of risks, including technical failure, a compromised manufacturing process or worse — shutting down entire assembly lines.

Advertisement

More technologically advanced machines also require more skilled workers to operate and maintain them. Their absence can in turn hinder the development of new manufacturing products and processes.

Christina Villena, vice president of risk solutions, The Hanover Insurance Group, said the main risk of using cobots is bodily injury to their human coworkers. These cobots are robots that share a physical workspace and interact with humans. To overcome the problem of potential injury, Villena said, cobots are placed in safety cages or use force-limited technology to prevent hazardous contact.

“With advancements in technology, such as the Cloud, there are going to be a host of cyber and other risks associated with them.” — David Carlson, U.S. manufacturing and automobile practice leader, Marsh

“Technology must be in place to prevent cobots from exerting excessive force against a human or exposing them to hazardous tools or chemicals,” she said. “Traditional robots operate within a safety cage to prevent dangerous contact. Failure or absence of these guards has led to injuries and even fatalities.”

The increasing use of interconnected devices and the Cloud to control and collect data from industrial control systems can also leave manufacturers exposed to hacking, said David Carlson, Marsh’s U.S. manufacturing and automobile practice leader. Given the relatively new nature of cyber as a risk, however, he said coverage is still a gray area that must be assessed further.

“With advancements in technology, such as the Cloud, there are going to be a host of cyber and other risks associated with them,” he said. “Therefore, companies need to think beyond the traditional risks, such as workers’ compensation and product liability.”

Another threat, said Bill Spiers, vice president, risk control consulting practice leader, Lockton Companies, is any malfunction of the software used to operate cobots. Then there is the machine not being able to cope with the increased workload when production is ramped up, he said.

“If your software goes wrong, it can stop the machine working or indeed the whole manufacturing process,” he said. “[Or] you might have a worker who is paid by how much they can produce in an hour who decides to turn up the dial, causing the machine to go into overdrive and malfunction.”

Potential Solutions

Spiers said risk managers need to produce a heatmap of their potential exposures in the workplace attached to the use of cobots in the manufacturing process, including safety and business interruption. This can also extend to cyber liability, he said.

“You need to understand the risk, if it’s controllable and, indeed, if it’s insurable,” he said. “By carrying out a full risk assessment, you can determine all of the relevant issues and prioritize them accordingly.”

By using collective learning to understand these issues, Joseph Mayo, president, JW Mayo Consulting, said companies can improve their safety and manufacturing processes.

“Companies need to work collaboratively as an industry to understand this new technology and the problems associated with it.” — Joseph Mayo, president, JW Mayo Consulting

“Companies need to work collaboratively as an industry to understand this new technology and the problems associated with it,” Mayo said. “They can also use detective controls to anticipate these issues and react accordingly by ensuring they have the appropriate controls and coverage in place to deal with them.”

Advertisement

Manufacturing risks today extend beyond traditional coverage, like workers’ compensation, property, equipment breakdown, automobile, general liability and business interruption, to new risks, such as cyber liability.

It’s key to use a specialized broker and carrier with extensive knowledge and experience of the industry’s unique risks.

Stacie Graham, senior vice president and general manager, Liberty Mutual’s national insurance central division, said there are five key steps companies need to take to protect themselves and their employees against these risks. They include teaching them how to use the equipment properly, maintaining the same high quality of product and having a back-up location, as well as having the right contractual insurance policy language in place and plugging any potential coverage gaps.

“Risk managers need to work closely with their broker and carrier to make sure that they have the right contractual controls in place,” she said. “Secondly, they need to carry out on-site visits to make sure that they have the right safety practices and to identify the potential claims that they need to mitigate against.” &

Alex Wright is a U.K.-based business journalist, who previously was deputy business editor at The Royal Gazette in Bermuda. You can reach him at [email protected]